Hacker News Reader

> The project is open source and open to contributions from anyone.

The project is exclusively governed by three Google employees, listed at https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/GOVERNANCE..., all contributions are at their discretion.

All contributors must sign a legally binding licensing agreement with Google which includes a patent grant, per https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/CONTRIBUTI....

The Web is powerful because you don't have to ask permission. AMP is not cut from that cloth.

I don't see what makes it different from any other open source project. Of course it's going to have technical leads and core committers, it's not like you can go force a PR merge on jQuery trunk any time you please. I'm aghast that you would even suggest such a thing.

And CLA's aren't fun, but they're hardly new, either.[1]

If you don't like that it's Google, that's fine, but at least be honest with yourself about it. But unless you've submitted a PR or can cite a PR (on any Google OSS repo at all) that they've rejected purely on the basis that Google is somehow doing wrong by the developers, then what are we even talking about?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#...

To me the problematic part that makes it different to at least some open source projects is that all those technical leads and core committers are apparently employed by Google (and working on company time, I assume). That could mean Google, and Google alone, gets to decide where it goes.

Honestly, the only criticism I'm hearing over and over is "because Google", and considering their track record with Chrome, Android, Angular, Polymer, Go, and literally hundreds of other open-source projects, I'm perfectly okay with that.

> The project is open source and open to contributions from anyone. Every single time this comes up the project contributors have said that they will gladly modify <amp-ad> to support any network they can. They're also constantly developing new <amp-X> components to fill in the gaps for other embeddable services. You want <amp-vk>? Submit a PR! Open an issue! It's open source!

Who gets to decide which pull requests get accepted? What if I wanted to create an amp component for my network with a userbase of two people?

amp-iframe is what you want is this case.

See https://medium.com/@cramforce/2016-will-be-the-year-of-concu... for the long game as to how to build such things in AMP without iframes.

The whole point of AMP is...

Right. Looking at this whole thing humorously, it seems like the uproar is over AMP is developers getting angry at a tool designed to prevent them from shooting themselves in the foot, for removing their ability to shoot themselves in the foot :)

I look at it as HTML5 "strict" mode.

> you can just submit a PR.

And wait for google to accept it at their own discretion. That's exactly what a gatekeeper is.

Open Source does not really mean better and open. The role of Google as Gatekeeper remains. Android is Open source too but how many non-Google controlled Android phones do you see on market ?

A few.

http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Devices

Open source means there's no such thing as a "Gatekeeper". As with every other open source project ever, you can just fork it. How many open source projects today are forked from their original repo because a large enough portion of the users and developers disagreed with the ones in control?

Honestly, this argument is just silly. https://developers.google.com/open-source/projects read that list and name one time where Google abused the control they had over the project they created. They already have a good track record for open source. This "gatekeeper" nonsense is just a bunch of unnecessary FUD.